Invicti vs Seeker comparison

"Attacking feature: Actually, attacking is not a solo feature. It contains many attack engines, Hawk, and many properties. But Netsparker's attacking mechanism is very flexible. This increases the vulnerability detection rate. Also, Netsparker made the Hawk for real-time interactive command-line-based exploit testing. It's very valuable for a vulnerability scanner."

"I would rate the stability as ten out of ten."

"Invicti is a good product, and its API testing is also good."

"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."

"Crawling feature: Netsparker has very detail crawling steps and mechanisms. This feature expands the attack surface."

"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."

"Invicti's best feature is the ability to identify vulnerabilities and manually verify them."

"Invicti's proactive scanning measures vulnerabilities each time we deploy or push code to a new environment."

"A significant advantage of Seeker is that it is an interactive scanner, and we have found it to be much more effective in reducing the amount of false positives than dynamic scanners such as AppScan, Micro Focus Fortify, etc. Furthermore, with Seeker, we are finding more and more valid (i.e. "true") positives over time compared with the dynamic scanners."

"Netsparker doesn't provide the source code of the static application security testing."

"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."

"The proxy review, the use report views, the current use tool and the subset requests need some improvement. It was hard to understand how to use them."

"Invicti's reporting capabilities need enhancement. We need enterprise-level information instead of repo-level details. Unlike Appiro, Invicti does not provide portfolio-level insights into vulnerability remediation over time."

"They could enhance the support for data swap testing for the platform."

"The support's response time could be faster since we are in different time zones."

"The higher level vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting, SQL Injection, and other higher level injection attacks are difficult to highlight using Netsparker."

"The license could be better. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license. It's a major hindrance that we are facing while scanning applications, and we have to be sure that the URLs are the same and not different so that we do not end up consuming another license for it. Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. The licensing is tied to the URL, and it's restricted. If you have a URL that you scanned once, like a website, you cannot retry that same license. If you are scanning the same website but in a different domain or different URL, you might end up paying for a second license. It would also be better if they provided proper support for multi-factor authentications. In the next release, I would like them to include good multi-factor authentication support."

"One area that Seeker can improve is to make it more customizable. All security scanning tools have a defined set of rules that are based on certain criteria which they will use to detect issues. However, the criteria that you set initially is not something that all applications are going to need."

"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."

"Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license."

"The solution is very expensive. It comes with a yearly subscription. We were paying 6000 dollars yearly for unlimited scans. We have three licenses; basic, business, and ultimate. We need ultimate because it has unlimited scan numbers."

"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."

"It is competitive in the security market."

"We are using an NFR license and I do not know the exact price of the NFR license. I think 20 FQDN for three years would cost around 35,000 US Dollars."

"Invicti is best suited for large enterprises. I don't think small and medium-sized businesses can afford it. Maintenance costs aren't that great."

"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."

"The licensing for Seeker is user-based and for 50 users I believe it costs about $70,000 per year."